When is a calorie not a calorie?

[nate225]

I was wondering where you were coming from Elite, as in your background, so I reviewed your old posts. Probably not a surprise to me that there was lots of of anti-carb, anti-soy, pro-fat, cholestrol-conspiracy type stuff. Then I stumbled upon this:

Ive been a PT since January 2010, but been around for a while having worked at other gyms such as, The Leisure Centre,Les Mils,Milenium Institute, and currently a PT at Key Fitness. My training was at AUT and Academy New Zealand...Ive had to spend some time unlearning the stuff from both places...and continue to upskill through various courses, such as CHEK Institute etc.. Really I'm an an absolute Infovore..part passion part addiction.

It reminded me of a similar conversation I was having about GP's who are trained in 'Western Science' then shift their thinking to prescribe alternative solutions to the masses. Out of curiousity what made you decide that AUT and the Academy had it so wrong?

Also I'm keen to hear about your diet (and stats - no I'm not looking for bro science here!) and perhaps what you would prescribe an athlete (as opposed to a BBer).

I realise you and I will never agree on much, however I'm not naive enough to think that I know it all (or that conventional science, in a western sense, has all the answers). I always believe there's some gold in every conversation - it's just a matter of finding it! :nod:

Nate

[startinfromscratch]

tl,dr

OP, just buy you some eatme whey, and wipe this thread from your memory before it consumes you.

real talk.

[Pseudonym]

This seemed like too good a debate to stop, so I've split this into its own topic.

As you were, gentlemen - this is interesting!

[Elite121]

I was wondering where you were coming from Elite, as in your background, so I reviewed your old posts. Probably not a surprise to me that there was lots of of anti-carb, anti-soy, pro-fat, cholestrol-conspiracy type stuff. Then I stumbled upon this:

As far as fats go not all are created equally, I am actually very much opposed to many fats especially vegetable oils... think inflammation.

As far as being ant-carb. we eat far too much of it...take grains for example that contain phytic acid,Lectins,Protease,Alpha-amylase inhibitors,Alkylresorcinols,Molecular mimicking proteins. this is but the tip of the iceberg on how dangerous grains are to our health.

As far as being ant-soy, there is good reason for this,epidemiological, clinical and laboratory studies link soy to malnutrition, digestive problems, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders, even heart disease and cancer.

Cholesterol conspiracy? More like conspiracy fact.

It reminded me of a similar conversation I was having about GP's who are trained in 'Western Science' then shift their thinking to prescribe alternative solutions to the masses. Out of curiousity what made you decide that AUT and the Academy had it so wrong?

Lots of misinformation....mainstream rubbish....especially on nutrition... I'm grateful for the piece of papers I received thats about it.

Also I'm keen to hear about your diet (and stats - no I'm not looking for bro science here!) and perhaps what you would prescribe an athlete (as opposed to a BBer).

I eat according to my Metabolic Type...not from the Metabolic Typing book thats in many stores that is the watered down version... I'm talking about Metabolic Typing originally founded by Dr. William D. Kelly. In terms of prescribing a diet plan for an athlete or anyone for that matter, it starts by performing a thorough metabolic typing assessment.

I'm working at improving my stats, before my injuries I was up around 87kgs, at 11% BF and making good improvements until as I mentioned getting injured.Doing the best I can without Squatting & Dead-lifting.I am hoping to be hitting those lifts in the future..

I realise you and I will never agree on much, however I'm not naive enough to think that I know it all (or that conventional science, in a western sense, has all the answers). I always believe there's some gold in every conversation - it's just a matter of finding it! :nod:

Fair enough...I will always keep an open mind and never let my education get in the way of learning

[nate225]

So your approach to things is much like that of Eric Talmant?

I'll never be sold on his way of thinking either but Eric is a great lifter & PLing administrator (Raw Unity Meet organiser) so I'm sure your similar approach can work for you in getting a bigger squat / deadlift.

Appreciate the response Elite.

Nate

[ThePman]

Arguments disputing cals in = cals out

1. Tend to ignore that our measurement of energy content in foods is highly inaccurate; and

2. Tend to ignore that our measurement of energy expenditure by a functioning human body is far more inaccurate than that

Once you account for mechanical/chemical work done, heat losses due to inherent inefficiency, and "real values" for metabolizable energy provided by food, the in vs. out equation has to add up.

The problem is not in the equation. The problem is the inherent inaccuracy of the measurement, which many try to handwave into hormonal magic. It's more like you just don't know how much was actually taken in or used up.

If it were as easy as magic insulin, we'd be running our cars off the stuff. Energy doesn't spontaneously appear or disappear.

[Elite121]

Once you account for mechanical/chemical work done, heat losses due to inherent inefficiency, and "real values" for metabolizable energy provided by food, the in vs. out equation has to add up.

If calories in, calories out theory works, which is well known by lots of people, then why is obesity higher than ever? If this formula was so simple, then why are people not losing fat?

[Dubble_D]

If calories in, calories out theory works, which is well known by lots of people, then why is obesity higher than ever? If this formula was so simple, then why are people not losing fat?

:nod:

[ThePman]

Once you account for mechanical/chemical work done, heat losses due to inherent inefficiency, and "real values" for metabolizable energy provided by food, the in vs. out equation has to add up.

If calories in, calories out theory works, which is well known by lots of people, then why is obesity higher than ever? If this formula was so simple, then why are people not losing fat?

1. People eat too much.*

2. People don't know they eat too much.

* Where "too much" is defined as "more than they use up in the course of a day". Calorie dense foods + sedentary lifestyle + (possible mitigating factors that may muck w/ BMR) = people gaining weight. Occam's razor will always give you the simplest answer. To wit:

Can you point out any scenario in nature where energy balance doesn't apply? Physicists have been trying since the idea was first formulated and they haven't found an answer yet. If they had an answer, we wouldn't be worried about future energy resources. So I'm wondering why Google-educated people think the answer is "fat people"?

To put it more simply, re: Occam's razor: what's the more likely answer, that people eat too much or that fat people are magic?

[cycomiko]

Questions Nate, is this a proven theory? is there anecdotal evidence to support this? as fore mentioned this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and plus i read it on the innuhnet so how can you be right?

the only time it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics is when the person claiming it fails their NCEA physics

[Dubble_D]

To put it more simply, re: Occam's razor: what's the more likely answer, that people eat too much or that fat people are magic?

Fat people are magic??? :pray:

[Dubble_D]

the only time it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics is when the person claiming it fails their NCEA physics

I thought you can't fail NCEA?

[Peachy]

If calories in, calories out theory works, which is well known by lots of people, then why is obesity higher than ever? If this formula was so simple, then why are people not losing fat?

:nod:

:-s Am I missing something here??

I must be because this seems so obvious and I'm blonde.

The fact that obesity is higher than ever is proof that calories in/calories out theory works. Everyone is taking in more calories than they are expending.

The way I see it (and Im scared of sounding stupid but oh well here goes) a calorie is a way of measuring the energy in food. And it only measures the energy and thats it. When the food is processed in our body there are a so many factors that influence the net calories the body ends up with. Like if you eat a chicken breast with X amount of calories or straight glucose with X amount of calories. Straight away you use more energy just to chew the chicken breast than you do allowing the glucose to dissolve in your mouth. So the net energy obtained from each food is different despite providing the body with the same amount.

I thought the calories in calories out theory is basically that if you consume more than you expend you gain weight and if you expend more than you consume you lose weight. I dont see how that is flawed. The only thing that is flawed in using this method for controlling your weight is that we have no way of correctly calculating how many calories (or how much energy) the body expends. Hormones can make cell function more energy efficient or less energy efficient. Different types of food take more energy just to be digested.

As far as genetics making people fat I think its just that genetics affect the bodies rate of energy expenditure. Because no one gets fatter when they drop their calories to zero - a guaranteed way of making sure energy consumed is less than expended haha.

This thread is really confusing me because the way I see it your basing your argument on a law of physics without applying it correctly. It seems like maybe there are two different arguments here but everyone is actually on the same side.

The "calorie is a calorie" debate is different from from the "energy in/ energy out" debate. Because people who disagree with "calorie is a calorie" are actually agreeing with energy in / energy out.

[ThePman]

You got it right.

Variability in the availability of energy or how the body puts it to use (or loses it to heat via a variety of mechanisms) is not the same as saying the concept is flawed.

The concept can't be flawed. I can't run my car on insulin cause it makes energy from nothing.

[bob26]

I am going to stop counting calories now and just start eating 3kg of food a day :pfft:

if i stop losing body fat i will drop it to 2.5kg per day :pfft:

very interesting debate there guys.... don't know which way to go with this one...

8)

[cycomiko]

Nobel Prize-winner, Hans Krebs, mentioned in his book about another Nobel Prize-winner, Otto Warburg, M.D., Ph.D. “Fick made it clear in 1893 that living cells cannot be heat engines…”

Did ya know, in 120 years no advances of scientific knowledge have been made

Chemical reactions are not heat engines , news at 10

In 2003, Harvard University study found people on a low carbohydrate diet could eat 25,000 more calories than those on a high carbohydrate diet over a 12-week period and they gained no additional weight. If the calorie theory was correct then the low carbohydrate group should have gained a little over 3kg's of fat.

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medic ... ve-low-fat

Ah, the greene study. The best part about that trial is it differntiates the people who know about statistical analysis from those who do not. Guess which side you may fall on...

In another study conducted at Harvard University, some participants ate only carbohydrates, while other participants ate twice as many calories of only protein. Although the protein eaters ate twice as many calories as the carbohydrates eaters, they didn't gain any weight, whereas the carbohydrates eaters gained weight despite eating fewer calories.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357

Please don't tell me you think that about that trial? Man, do you even understand the methodology they used to collect dietary data, or the variability associated with it?

Never mind with all of that variability the subjects (6months ) the subjects protein intake only ranged from 72 to 91grams...

Twice as many calories?

So again is a calorie a calorie?

Yes.

A number of recent studies that have shown that subjects following low-carb diets actually lose more weight than their counterparts on low-fat, high carb diets despite the fact that the low-carbers consumed considerably more calories.Take a look at this earlier study to see more:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/23/7/948

You say "A number of recent studies" then provide Yudkins stuff from 1970?

Never mind one that was looking at nutrient intake. One that showed the subjects REDUCED their food intake when switching over to a low carb intake?

I also don't agree with the the calories in calories out theory..heres why.

ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= ... 661765149#

lol, who woulda thunked it was a taubes'ite

Have you actually read his book, or just the video?

And on another note if it was that simple calorie in calories out then why then are there 300 million people worldwide that are obese, and over a billion overweight, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Clearly the calories in calories out theory is not working!

Do you realise how little sense that makes? At a time there is a world wide increase in caloric availability, a worldwide decrease in activity, calores in vs calories out aint working?

Must be magic.

And a big thing when people talk about calories in calorie out is that they almost never mention a very important aspect Hormones...its beyond me that people ignore this.Hormones have a huge part to play. Think INSULIN it governs how much fat we accumulate in our fat tissue. Insulin is lipogenic.

nobody ever, in the entire history of the world has ever talked about hormones.

An important thing to remember is, it's not the amount of calories eaten, it’s the content of the calories. If we eat foods that will be used for energy and body structure, like proteins and natural fats, we do NOT have to worry about getting fat. On the other hand, if we load up on carbs, which are not used for building the body structure, the body must release insulin to treat the excess sugar from the carbs and then will ultimately store this sugar as fat.

Eat for nutrition not for calories

Excess sugar, that sounds almost like something, magical, like energy... wut

[cycomiko]

the only time it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics is when the person claiming it fails their NCEA physics

I thought you can't fail NCEA?

Not Achieved

[Elite121]

Once you account for mechanical/chemical work done, heat losses due to inherent inefficiency, and "real values" for metabolizable energy provided by food, the in vs. out equation has to add up.

If calories in, calories out theory works, which is well known by lots of people, then why is obesity higher than ever? If this formula was so simple, then why are people not losing fat?

1. People eat too much.*

2. People don't know they eat too much.

* Where "too much" is defined as "more than they use up in the course of a day". Calorie dense foods + sedentary lifestyle + (possible mitigating factors that may muck w/ BMR) = people gaining weight. Occam's razor will always give you the simplest answer. To wit:

The calories in calories out hypothesis does not account for unexplained weight-gain nor does it say anything about hormones, all it says is that consuming more calories than one needs will cause weight gain, which is why its flawed.Factors including lack of sleep,stress,parasitic infections & medications all have an effect on weight-gain all of which the calories in vs calories out hypothesis blatantly ignores.

[ThePman]

The calories in calories out hypothesis does not account for unexplained weight-gain

Yes it does. Provide any scenario and you can find a way that energy balance was modified. Hormones cannot create mass from nothing.

nor does it say anything about hormones

So?

Hormones modulate energy intake (via affecting appetite) and what's done with the energy that's taken in (used for tissue synthesis, metabolized as energy, etc). That's all. They aren't magical batteries that synthesis mass from the ether.

If you want to talk nutrient partitioning, sure. But that's entirely different from what you're saying.

all it says is that consuming more calories than one needs will cause weight gain, which is why its flawed.

So you can show me a case where energy balance has been violated?

Why hasn't this been patented and sold as a solution to energy problems?

Factors including lack of sleep,stress,parasitic infections & medications all have an effect on weight-gain all of which the calories in vs calories out hypothesis blatantly ignores.

Demonstrate how, please. "Mass from nothing, it just does!" isn't sufficient.

[Elite121]

The calories in calories out hypothesis does not account for unexplained weight-gain

Yes it does. Provide any scenario and you can find a way that energy balance was modified. Hormones cannot create mass from nothing.

nor does it say anything about hormones

So?

Hormones modulate energy intake (via affecting appetite) and what's done with the energy that's taken in (used for tissue synthesis, metabolized as energy, etc). That's all. They aren't magical batteries that synthesis mass from the ether.

If you want to talk nutrient partitioning, sure. But that's entirely different from what you're saying.

all it says is that consuming more calories than one needs will cause weight gain, which is why its flawed.

So you can show me a case where energy balance has been violated?

Why hasn't this been patented and sold as a solution to energy problems?

Factors including lack of sleep,stress,parasitic infections & medications all have an effect on weight-gain all of which the calories in vs calories out hypothesis blatantly ignores.

Demonstrate how, please. "Mass from nothing, it just does!" isn't sufficient.

Read "Sleep,Sugar & Survival" and "How To Eat Move And Be Healthy", for a start.Its not that hard to do your own research on how medications affect weight-gain.

[ThePman]

I don't want to go read something. I want you to respond to my points with real answers.

[teamfatboy]

:ditto:

People don't grow 'just because' regardless of how they grow. Whether it's muscle mass or water retention, someway, somehow, something additional has to be ingested. Likewise, tissue erodes for many reasons... in each case the reasons may be complex, or poorly understood, but the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transformed) is the kicker here, surely.

[Elite121]

I don't want to go read something. I want you to respond to my points with real answers.

If you wont make the effort to read then I cannot help you.

[cycomiko]

Provide something of value to read, rather than Check and Wiley...

lol

Even Taubes is of higher standards than those two.

[ThePman]

I'm not sure you understand the problem, Elite.

I'm familiar with basic physics and chemistry because I've taken them and passed them. Those are very fundamental, well-studied and well verified fields. I don't have the burden of proof to demonstrate that basic physics is right, in the same way I don't have to prove gravity points down. It's so proven that it's self-evident.

You're the one claiming that insulin is *grossly* violating a physical law by causing people to become fat without an increase in energy intake.

If you want to make that claim, you have to provide pretty clear evidence of why and how that's happening. "Go read a book" is not compelling evidence (especially given the qualifications of the authors) in the face of all of scientific knowledge.

Claiming I'm ignorant is the same as claiming you believe in unicorns and telling me I'm ignorant because I won't go read about them.